Baseball season is winding down with game three of the World Series this evening at Mile High Denver Colorado. The "Boys of Summer" are bringing to a close a season begun in April during a snow storm in Cleveland Ohio, and likely to end on Holloween in a 32 degree temperature finale. So much for "summer", so much for "boys." High salaries of the individual players, dictate the extended season ticket sales. Bidding for great players results in team payroll levels of $200 million for the New York Yankees, and $145 million for the Boston Red Socks (NY is first, Boston 2nd). Denver is 26th in payroll and the Cleveland Indians were 23rd. Cleveland and Boston had identical records, and Cleveland took Boston to 7 games; I doubt Denver can match. We will see what we will see.
Sports are no different than other areas of human endeavors. Money will be thrown at research, industrial capital, high tech, innovation, almost anything to produce a "winner." As evidence by the Hollywood shenanegans of the likes of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and a host of other names, throwing money at visible media folks is done to make a "winner" as well. The effort seems to me, is an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Where is the " Little engine than could"? Where is the ethic that patients, determination, persistance, perserverence are the mantra we should expouse. History tells us that "flash in the pan" does not lead to sustained riches for human kind as a whole. Even Noble Prizes, except the politically motivated "Peace" prize, are awarded way after the individual has long since contributed important work, sometimes, awarded postumously. The Noble Committee has to wait and see if the idea/invention/discovery has panned out, made a worthwhile contribution. I was struck by the appearance and videos of one of the winners of the Noble Prize in Economics. The man was in a nursing home. In the back ground were other aged people in wheelchairs and walkers. I am saddened by the down fall of James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, also a Noble Prize winner, after his remarks about race, DNA, and intelligence led to his dismissal from a research institute, and the rebuke heaped upon him by his "collegues." At what point do we wish to listen and consider issues, rather than find the next winning horse to ride. These are the issues of "politically correct." Here at Michigan State University, a man from the UK by the name of Griffin was invited to speak by a University sanctioned club; his message was his accusation of the evilness of Islam. Needless to say, people showed up to bang on plastic chairs, hurl insults and chanting to overcome the speaker's voice. Only the protesters, none of the club memebers nor the speaker were interviewed: protesters saying "I believe in free speach BUT ...' Basically, it appears that the protesters were saying, "I believe in my free speach, and I am unwilling to listen to somebody that does not agree with me." Now, one of the Board of Trustees, was publically wishing the club that invited the speaker to be kicked off campus and calling for a special Board meeting to discuss such an action.
I am becoming a radical, a Libertarian of all things. The speaker would likely have spoken to a small audience of like minded individuals. It is the actions of those like-minded individuals that should be addressed. Does someone defile or intiimidate a person of the Muslim faith? And likewise, does a person of the Musliim faith act upon calls to destroy the "Crusaders"; usurp Western Civilization and impose Shari Law? Vigilance of democracy requires both listening to others and speaking up for yourself. Recently, I have seen little listening, a whole lot of talking, and what D'Toqueville, who was touring the USA in 1848, describe as the" tyranny of the majority." I think "politcally correct" fits that notion perfectly. Our Constitution was designed with the individual, the minortiy, in mind. How is it possible that I am constitutionally moving towards Clarence Thomas!
2 comments:
Hi dad,
Well, the "freedom of speech" clause in the first amendment is usually interpreted to apply to political speech, whereas libel and the canonical example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, are not protected. Furthermore, when someone takes a ridiculous and bigoted stance in a public forum, it's not surprising that people who's well being is threaten by that stance speak out against it.
If you look at James Watson's appology for his statement:
"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly.
"That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief,"
you can see that he himself does not believe what he said, and is embarrassed by what he said ("I am mortified about what has happened.") Basically, he put his foot in his mouth in a particular way that historically has been used more intentionally to subjugate people in various nasty ways.
So in what sense is his freedom of speech being violated? He said what he wanted, and the public responded. Now he feels dumb and has retracted what he said. It sounds like free speech at work to me.
Should the infamous hate speech inciting murder on the government radio in Rwanda leading to the genocide have continued unopposed for so long, in the name of free speech? Should the public have turned a blind eye (again) to Don Imus for his blatant racism? I don't think so.
As for libertarianism (to take an extreme stance for a moment), we can look to Sudan to see the results of a government with weak institutions. Libertarianism favors those who (think they) need little besides roads from the government; the wealthy and powerful. Libertarianism is, in my opinion, a completely un-nuanced, simplistic world-view that may seem internally consistent, but falls short when it comes time to implement fair and rational policies.
As for this speaker at MSU, with such an idiotic and hate-spreading thesis, is it any wonder that people shut him down?
Dad,
Just to be clear (and end on a point of agreement), I do think that censorship in the media _is_ a big problem that we face. With greater and greater consolidation of media outlets and the dominance of public spectrum by private interests, it's difficult to get a _dissenting_ viewpoint aired to the public. Prohibition 2.0 (aka "The War on Drugs") is one of the most disastrous public policies in the history of our country, with ramifications throughout the world, and yet politicians won't touch the issue out of fear of the political viewpoints of the major news outlets, and hence the public. Similarly for the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Post a Comment